You're probably unaware of this, but I am the guy who sold him that TrackMan. And Jeff Martin is hardly what I'd call… a guy with a scientific background. Nor is Kelvin.

Their "results" are based on comparing phantom camera footage to the TrackMan results. It was anything but scientific, and does not even begin to approach the level of accuracy that both TrackMan and FlightScope have done.

TrackMan and FlightScope are far and away the best tools for the job (under $50k). Will better tech surface in the future? Yes. Does better tech exist at > $50k now? Yes. Are they far more accurate than your "feel" or a pro-sumer level camera? Yes. Are they tools that are useful in the hands of a competent instructor? Yes.

At this point, I've gotta ask: what is your question? Because neither of you seem to have one.

...TrackMan and FlightScope are far and away the best tools for the job (under $50k). Will better tech surface in the future? Yes. Does better tech exist at > $50k now? Yes. Are they far more accurate than your "feel" or a pro-sumer level camera? Yes. Are they tools that are useful in the hands of a competent instructor? Yes.

I tend to agree with this, with reservations. Doppler measurement of ball flight can be very accurate if enough data points are collected from launch to landing. Error is small because the object tracked is small, of uniform shape, and the trajectory relatively long.

Club data is not as accurate because the observed shape of the object is not uniform throughout the measurement process. Assumptions of the geometric center must be made from start to finish. The geometric center is not the same as the center of gravity, nor is it the axis of either horizontal or vertical club rotation. I am sure the authors of the algorithms are doing the best they can to minimize the error, but to say that club delivery is measured is akin to Measuring nothing (with great accuracy).

Quote:

From Jeff's Forum:

Originally Posted by KC Todd

From seeing Kelvin's videos with the Phantom camera it would seem that while you could get some accurate information with radar, its not telling the whole story. Do you think radar is useful for club analysis? We know it measures the ball really well but would you still use it for things like AoA, face and path?

However, think about the technological challenge of using radar, that can only read signals bounced off the back of the club and the ball, to measure face angle, dynamic loft, angle of attack and the geometric center of the club. It doesn't measure these things, it calculates them based off of what is reflected off the clubhead, hosel, shaft, and ball, then applies an algorithm. Is one algorithm going to be correct for all the different clubs and impact conditions?

Jeff

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

You're probably unaware of this, but I am the guy who sold him that TrackMan...

...At this point, I've gotta ask: what is your question? Because neither of you seem to have one.

Interesting. So did you go with FlightScope because you liked their better assumptions, more flexible algorithms, or lower price point?

No bias there... lol.
I think he pretty much summed it up right there. The reason neither have a question is because we're asking them to the wrong people. Otherwise we'd have answers. Very interesting to know then radar assumes the center of the 'blob' and the center of gravity when it might not be. I'm sure it's a good relatively accurate tool but both companies claims of near absolute accuracy is suspect.

No bias there... lol.
I think he pretty much summed it up right there. The reason neither have a question is because we're asking them to the wrong people. Otherwise we'd have answers. Very interesting to know then radar assumes the center of the 'blob' and the center of gravity when it might not be. I'm sure it's a good relatively accurate tool but both companies claims of near absolute accuracy is suspect.

No, You are just looking for people who just want to support your opinion.

So let me say this, IT DOESN'T MATTER if it sees them as a blob or not. Its still viewing an object in space, and is able to track its movement with pretty good precision and accuracy.

Trackman isn't saying their stuff is absolutely accurate. They are saying, at 95% confidence the data parameters they collect will be with in that range. Do they title it absolute accuracy, yea, but they are just giving you what they can achieve 95% of the time. Which is pretty good. You are taking something for what it isn't. They never claimed 100% accuracy.

We already owned a TrackMan. We sold it and bought the FlightScope because in our testing it was shown to be more accurate.

That's almost the opposite of "bias." We tested them, with a Phantom camera, and the FS was more accurate. Bias? Stupid comment.

I'm also not convinced you're not Damon.

Yeah, that's us. People who are afraid to say when we think something is wrong… Uh huh.

Based on what? You started this thing basing your entire opinion on what you felt was accurate, and hearsay you cannot coherently repeat.

Hahaha... I'm both Brossard and Schoen. Dude you're paranoid... I'm just a guy whose interested in all the new wave teaching methods and am not convinced that's all. Those guys are full bore Trackman supporters, me not quite sold yet.

Hahaha... I'm both Brossard and Schoen. Dude you're paranoid... I'm just a guy whose interested in all the new wave teaching methods and am not convinced that's all. Those guys are full bore Trackman supporters, me not quite sold yet.

I never said you were Schoen. Your IP address matches two of Damon's banned accounts.

I have asked you multiple times to state your questions coherently. Thus far you've failed to do so. I refute your stupid claims of "bias" and mum's the word.

This thread is on its last legs.

How accurate are radar numbers? Answer given. Not quite buying it. Based on nothing, it seems, but your "feels."

I wasn't terribly impressed with it in the hour or so I've spent with it. It doesn't do a great job measuring the ball, of course, and you have to position stickers and things on your clubs somewhat accurately, IIRC.

Given a choice between having accurate ball measurements or accurate club measurements, because the game is ultimately about the ball, I'd rather have those, especially since TM/FS are "pretty accurate" in my testing with the club data, where by "pretty accurate" I mean to within a tenth of a degree most of the time on many things.

Have any of you guys been following what's going on over at the WRX? I guess Trackman Maestro and Brossard got into it and now a bunch of guys found info that this Maestro guy first picked up a golf club in 2009 and was trying to learn Stack and Tilt. Guys taking a lashing over there, I told you guys there was about to be a big war in that silly Trackman scene.

Have any of you guys been following what's going on over at the WRX? I guess Trackman Maestro and Brossard got into it and now a bunch of guys found info that this Maestro guy first picked up a golf club in 2009 and was trying to learn Stack and Tilt. Guys taking a lashing over there, I told you guys there was about to be a big war in that silly Trackman scene.